User blog:Homuhomu123/Evaluation of CA, CAV
Introduction: This is my 4th part of the ASTRE Project . According to previous studies, I found some degree of inconsistency on DA chance estimates for CA & BBV. This experiment is mainly oriented to differentiate CA base & CAV base on DA chance. Since the difference is estimated to be ~3%, a fairly large sample size shall be utilized to come up with a solid conclusion. The Experiment Information About the Exp't - Fleet & Test ship condition: *Morale <20 (severe fatigue / red face) *Test ships are kept beyond moderate damage (中破) *Line ahead *AS+ achieved for every battle *No Saiun equipped *If both DA hit the enemy, it's only counted once (2=1). Also scratches are not counted as hit. - Enemy condition: *Either Line Ahead or DL. - Test Ships & Equipment: [ Exp't F ] - Completed in 2 Days (Total of 3.5h + 3h + 2h) - #Battles: 234 - Fleet total LoS = 443 -> 455 (+9% DA Chance) - Non-S Results: 42 - Buckets used: 59 (0) - CV(L): Chiyoda KK2 lv 89->96, {Flagship} ''[ Appendix - Data from Day 1 ] - Total of 3.5h + 3h - #Battles: 177 - Notes: Absence of fatigue modifier ?? Actual results are ~12% above our estimates. - Non-S: 29 - Buckets: 42 (0) [ Appendix - Data from Day 2 ] - Total of 2h - #Battles: 57 - Notes; Once again, 4 out of 5 ships suggest the absence of fatigue modifier. Analysis on the Data Comparitive Study on CA & CAV '''- Brief Conclusion:'' If we're allowed to categorize & combine data. a chart regarding the 2 ship types could be drawn. Although the trial number gets as large as 500+, standard error calculatioin puts error at 2.7% with 80% confidence. According to the chart, at LoS = 449, CAV has a base DA rate of 61.4%, compared to CA's 59%. A difference of only 2.4%. This creates an ambiguity on whether we should say CA has 3% less DA chance than CAV. In addition, the tiny difference may due to the variation in seaplanes (Type 0 Recon vs. Zuiun) and/or their plane count. DA Chance Study on BBV: BBV has the same base values as CAV. DA Accuracy Study Compared to CA(V) equipped with 20.3cm x2, Fuso with 35.6cm x2 basic DA setup gives 10~15% higher accuracy on double attacks (using 2=1). The sample sizes (#DA) used are all above 160, which give a standard error of 5% with 80% confidence. Since this is not the first time we see a higher DA accuracy from Fuso, ''the hypothesis "an appropriate caliber gun setup increases a BB's DA accuracy" seems valid. This hypothesis will be further evaluated by using (2=2). ''Preliminary Shelling Initiative Study (For fun & hypothesis) ''The following texts are merely hypothesis with few evidence.' As you may notice, I started recording "#FTA" since Exp't E. “FTA” represents "first to attack". It's a numerical count, on how many times the ship is the first one to attack during the 1st shelling phase. In this exp't, Fuso has longer range than any of the CAs so she's not counted. However, the 4 CA(V)s who share the same shelling range may have different initiatives on attack. It is assumed that ship with higher initiative will TEND to shell first. In Exp't F, despite a rather small sample size, we observed a higher initiative from ships on the bottom of the fleet, and CAVs probably have higher initiative than CAs. However, this study may have very limited use in real battles. Unless proven with a fairly large sample size (# Fair Battles > 300, in which every test ships are beyond moderate damage & under severe fatigue), the whole theory itself may be a trick from RNG sama. '' Doubts *In the link 艦これ-チラ裏検証-, Test No.7~9 suggest a Takao CA base rate of 47％ at '''LoS = 250', while No.15 suggests a CA base of 47% at LoS = 350. Here comes the problem: How could Takao Class CAs' DA chances remain unchanged as fleet LoS increased by 100? Similar thing could also be observed from No.17. This is the only biggest inconsistency so far as I noticed. *Well, what's the point of studying such insignificant factors... With effects no more than 3%, who cares X( Illustration on How Data Were Collected Category:Blog posts